Connect with us

Nevada

Nevada Supreme Court declines to wade into flap over certification of election results, for now – WTOP News

Published

on

Nevada Supreme Court declines to wade into flap over certification of election results, for now – WTOP News


RENO, Nev. (AP) — Nevada’s Supreme Court declined Tuesday to wade into an electoral controversy despite pleas from the state’s…

RENO, Nev. (AP) — Nevada’s Supreme Court declined Tuesday to wade into an electoral controversy despite pleas from the state’s top election official and attorney general after one county initially voted against certifying recount results from the June primary.

The Democratic officials wanted the justices to make clear that counties have no legal authority to refuse to certify election results.

The high court said in a ruling that the matter was moot since the Washoe County Commission’s original 3-2 vote against certification was later nullified when it re-voted the following week to certify the results.

Advertisement

The court dismissed Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar and Attorney General Aaron Ford’s request for a ruling declaring the commission acted illegally. But the justices also made clear that they have the legal authority to make such a declaration and warned they may do so on an expedited basis if it becomes an issue again.

“As petitioner argues, even when an issue becomes moot, we may still consider the issue if it constitutes ‘a matter of widespread importance capable of repetition,’” the court said.

Aguilar and Ford had argued that it’s likely the county commission would refuse to certify results from the general election in November. The court agreed that the issue is important but said it wasn’t convinced that there would likely be a repeat.

Once seen as a mundane and ministerial task, election certification has become a pressure point since the 2020 election. During the midterms two years later, a scenario similar to what is unfolding in Washoe County played out in New Mexico after that state’s primary, when a rural county delayed certification and relented only after the secretary of state appealed to the state’s supreme court.

Aguilar and Ford said in their request to the Supreme Court that Nevada law makes canvassing election results — including recounts — by a certain date a mandatory legal duty for the county commission. It also says commissioners have no discretion to refuse or otherwise fail to perform this duty.

Advertisement

Aguilar and Ford have argued previously that the certification flap has potential implications this November in one of the nation’s most important swing counties, which includes Reno and Sparks. Voter registration there is roughly split into thirds among Democrats, Republicans and nonpartisans.

Aguilar and Ford said Tuesday they were disappointed the justices declined to provide additional clarity on the law before the Nov. 5 general election.

“I strongly believe that legal uncertainty in this matter contributes to unfounded distrust in our elections,” Ford said in a statement.

Aguilar said election workers in Nevada “deserve support from the legal system, voters deserve confidence in the legitimacy of our elections, and elected officials must have accountability for their role in the process.”

“I’m hopeful that the Court will do the right thing should we find ourselves in a worst case scenario, but it’s disappointing that we have to wait for a true crisis to have this matter heard,” he said, also in a statement.

Advertisement

Two of the Republican Washoe County commissioners — Jeanne Herman and Mike Clark — have consistently voted against certifying results and are supported by a wider movement that promotes election conspiracy theories. Republican Clara Andriola, whom that movement targeted in the primaries, initially joined them in voting against certification, one of which involved the primary race she won.

After the board revisited the issue and approved the recount numbers, Andriola said she reversed course after speaking with the county district attorney’s office. She said it made clear that the commission’s duty is to certify election results without discretion.

“Our responsibility is to follow the law,” Andriola said.

Copyright
© 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, written or redistributed.

Advertisement



Source link

Nevada

IN RESPONSE: Cortez Masto lands bill would keep the proceeds in Nevada

Published

on

IN RESPONSE: Cortez Masto lands bill would keep the proceeds in Nevada


A recent Review-Journal letter to the editor mischaracterized Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto’s Southern Nevada Economic Development and Conservation Act, also known as the Clark County Lands bill. As the former executive director of the Nevada Conservation League, I wholeheartedly support this legislation, so I wanted to set the record straight.

Sen. Cortez Masto has been working on this bill for years in partnership with state and local governments, conservation groups like the NCL and local area tribes. It’s true that the Clark County lands bill would open 25,000 acres to help Las Vegas grow responsibly, while setting aside 2 million acres for conservation. It would also help create more affordable housing throughout the valley while ensuring our treasured public spaces can be preserved for generations to come.

What is not correct is that the money from these land sales would go to the federal government’s coffers. In fact, the opposite is true.

The 1998 Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act is a landmark bill that identified specific public land for future sale and created a special account ensuring all land sale revenues would come back to Nevada. In accordance with that law 5 percent of revenue from land transfers goes to the state of Nevada for general education purposes, 10 percent goes to the Southern Nevada Water Authority for needed water infrastructure and 85 percent supports conservation and environmental mitigation projects in Southern Nevada. This legislation has provided billions to Clark County and will continue to benefit generations of Southern Nevadans. Sen. Cortez Masto’s lands bill builds upon the act’s success.

Advertisement

So here’s the good news: All of the money generated from land made available for sale under Sen. Cortez Masto’s bill would be sent to the special account created by the 1998 law. Rather than going to an unaccountable federal government, the proceeds would continue to help kids in Vegas get a better education, bolster outdoor recreation and modernize Southern Nevada’s infrastructure.

I know how important it is that money generated from the sale of public land in Nevada stay in the hands of Nevadans, and so does the senator. That’s why she opposed a Republican effort last year to sell off 200,000 acres of land in Clark County and other areas of the country that would have sent those dollars directly to Washington.

Public land management in Nevada should benefit Nevadans. We should protect sacred cultural sites and beloved recreation spaces, responsibly transfer land for affordable housing when needed and ensure our state has the resources it needs to grow sustainably. I will continue working with Sen. Cortez Masto to advocate for legislation, such as the Clark County lands bill, that puts the needs of Nevadans first.

Paul Selberg writes from Las Vegas.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Nevada

Las Vegas High beats Coronado in 5A baseball — PHOTOS

Published

on

Las Vegas High beats Coronado in 5A baseball — PHOTOS